Daniel Osei Wereko writes;
 |
Daniel Osei Wereko
(UGSRC PRO)
|
What do we know so far? Up until now, we know a six count of cases was filed by some students of this University and members of the student body in the SRC Court seeking for grounds to impeach the current SRC President. Again, known to us is a court decision which granted two of the six count of cases and established a prima facie basis for the said impeachment.
We also know a General Assembly (GA) Emergency Meeting which was halted by a ‘Stay of Execution’ granted by the Appeals Board (AB) under the SRC constitution. This ‘Stay of Execution’ has become the source of what appears to be a feud and scuffle among and between us all. The opinions of the masses have invited me for an opinion granted in reasoning. You may not find me dealing with the rudiments of the law, but a refined opinion on the law will be professed. Three issues here;
First is on the subject of whether or not the court was right in sustaining two of the counts as grounds for impeachment. The outcome of the court’s proceedings remains the position and decision of the court so sustained in whatever evidences or details that were available to the court. On this matter, I do not have an opinion for now since it’s not the reason for this address. My singular reason is to examine what the way forward should be.
Second, like everyone of us, the arguments are made that there have been serious procedural breaches in the granting of the stay of execution, a reason GA could not meet on the matter. The growing concern has been that the Dean of Students Affairs who doubles as the Chairperson of the Appeals Board together with his board erred in giving such a decision. Before now, I was disturbed by such arguments so I begun to search for answers to questions. Was it not the case that a request was made by the "victim" whom the decision of the SRC court was made against to the Appeals Board to have a second look at the Judicial Board’s decision? Does he or does he not have such rights under the law? It so ridiculous to have heard some arguments made within the public space that such issue does not qualify to be appealed. Oh sweet Heavens! And I ask myself how is this possible? Maybe I need to be taken to the law class to be tutored.
With that said, it is interesting to know that the crux of the debate is about procedural breaches. However, it is perplexing to know how people could notice one procedural breach and yet seem not to know the other in this whole brouhaha.
On what basis was GA going to hold an emergency meeting? Article 24(3) reads, “The decision of the Judicial Board shall be by a simple majority and shall be communicated to an emergency session of the General Assembly called for that purpose by the Clerk of the General Assembly of the SRC forty-eight hours after receipt of the decision of the Judicial Board”. A simple interpretation of this element of the constitution only means that the Judicial Board in such instance must communicate their decision to GA or its leadership for appropriate action(s) of same. Essentially, the meeting of GA was supposed to have been sanctioned by a formal communication from the Judicial Board. Even though this meaning may not be explicit in form in the constitution, but it still holds. Even if this meaning is not what the constitution projects, an inspiration could be sought from basic practice. Per practice, the Judicial Board is responsible for notifying in this case the leadership of GA before such emergency meeting could be carried out.
This, I’m told didn’t happen. The said emergency meeting was going to be carried out under such communication, it was only going to be done on the mere persuasions from either the petitioners or other individuals . This procedural breach seem to have escaped everyone of us, it has become invisible and everyone of us is dead-silent on that. Should we begin to think such procedural breach is so irrelevant and adds no value to the conversation? If this question is answered in the affirmative, then same procedural breach said to have been committed by the Appeals Board must also be discarded infinitely.
Left to me alone, all concerned persons should proceed to lawfully challenge the position or decision of stay of execution by the Appeals Board before they begin to blame people for their unsuccessful attempt to unseat the President. It is important that the system is challenged to have it tested instead of resorting to hiding behind walls of Jericho to attack the personalities of people involve in this matter. If some of these systems were tested long before now, the current circumstance would not have been equated to the former Stay of Execution which was granted by same body in the GA speakership case which has now become the reference point in the current matter. If that case was pursued further, it would have served us well in the present issue.
Respectfully, insults and personal attacks, name-calling, attributions and descriptions have never got men any result in their fight. While it is within our right to pursue that which we want, let it be done so rightfully, at least to have a foundation laid for tomorrow. For our kind consideration!
)manfo) 3nfr3 yie!
Best Regards,
Kwaku Wereko BeGreat
Somewhere in Sekyere Kumawu District
Comments
Post a Comment